On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 11:51 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:10:48 +0100,
> Adrian McMenamin wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 12:25 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > > Another big concern is that spu_dma_work is initialized/rewritten
> > > dynamically in spu_begin_dma() and aica_period_elapsed() via
> > > INIT_WORK() and PREPARE_WOR(). This looks pretty strange and may be
> > > racy.
> >
> > Actually, the two macros INIT_WORK and PREPARE_WORK use the same work
> > queue but ask it to schedule the execution of two different (if very
> > similar) functions start_spu_dma() - which does the initial transfer and
> > more_spu_dma - which tops up the dma transfers.
> >
> > So I think I've got that right.
>
> What's wrong with using two individual work struct so that you
> initialize them only once?
> I wonder it because you already have unused fields work and work2...
>
They've gone actually.
I need to initialise them because every call is a discrete processing
job - ie I send one thing to go, then when a period has elapsed I
schedule another transfer to run on the kernel thread.
Isn't this the way it is meant to work?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
